U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2008

110–268 

Calendar No. 588 

CHILD SAFE VIEWING ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 602 

MARCH 3, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HELMS, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

JEAN TOAL EISEN, Senior Professional Staff 

CHRISTINE KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL J. NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

MIMI BRANIFF, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
69–010 

Calendar No. 588 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–268 

CHILD SAFE VIEWING ACT OF 2007 

MARCH 3, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 602] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 602) to develop the next generation 

of parental control technology, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 602 is to require the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) to begin a notice of inquiry within 90 days of 

enactment to examine the existence and availability of advanced 

blocking technologies that parents could use across a variety of 

communications devices or platforms to protect their children from 

inappropriate content. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, also known 

as the Parental Choice in Television Programming Act, directs the 

FCC to adopt rules that require certain televisions or devices capable of receiving television signals to ‘‘be equipped with a feature designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs with a 

common rating . . . .’’ Following the adoption of this provision, the 

broadcast, cable, and movie industries jointly created a voluntary 

system for rating television content, often referred to as the TV Parental Guidelines. These guidelines were then recognized by the 

FCC as meeting the requirements of section 551 and incorporated 

into rules mandating the adoption of V-Chip technology in certain 

televisions and devices capable of receiving television signals. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

Subsequent to the FCC’s approval of the ratings, a study conducted in 2000 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center provided 110 

families with television sets with V-Chips. Roughly half were given 

special training on how to program the V-Chip as well as detailed 

information about the meaning of television ratings, while the 

other half received no special training in how to use the V-Chip. 

After one year, the Annenberg study found that only 8 percent of 

these families had the V-Chip programmed and were actively using 

it. Only 6 percent of families could name one of the ratings for children’s programs and only 4 percent of families could identify that 

a ‘‘D’’ content rating identified suggestive dialogue. 

Similarly, a 2001 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) 

estimated that only 7 percent of parents have used the V-Chip, despite the fact that 40 percent of American families had at least one 

V-Chip-enabled television. There has been only a modest improvement in these usage figures over time. In 2004, the KFF found that 

15 percent of parents have used the V-Chip. In 2007, the KFF 

found that 16 percent of parents say they have used the V-Chip to 

block objectionable programming. Although 82 percent of parents 

now say that they have purchased a new television since January 

1, 2000, more than half (57 percent) are not aware that they have 

a V-Chip. 

In 2004, the FCC received a request from thirty-nine members 

of the House of Representatives asking that the agency undertake 

an inquiry on television violence. In response, the FCC issued a 

Notice of Inquiry, seeking public input on a variety of matters related to the issue of violent television content. The FCC received 

hundreds of filings from interested parties and individuals. On 

April 25, 2007, the FCC released its report on violent programming 

and its impact on children. In the report, the FCC found that, on 

balance, research provides strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at 

least in the short term. 

Section 551(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 

330(c)), also requires the FCC to ensure that blocking capability 

continues to be available to consumers as technology advances. 

Specifically, that section requires the FCC to ‘‘take such action as 

the Commission determines appropriate’’ to assess alternative program blocking technologies and to expand the V-Chip requirement, 

if necessary, to facilitate the use of alternative technologies that 

may not rely on common ratings. Since that time, however, the 

FCC has taken no significant action to consider the viability or 

availability of alternative blocking technologies that could be used 

by parents to shield children from inappropriate content. In that 

regard, S. 602 would require the Commission to gather information 

about the availability of ‘‘alternative blocking technologies’’ and to 

consider measures, other than proposals affecting the price or packaging of content, to encourage the development, deployment, and 

use of such technology. In recognition of the fact that television 

content is currently being made available over the Internet and 

over mobile devices, the legislation also requires the FCC to consider alternative blocking technologies that may be appropriate 

across a wide variety of content distribution platforms. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On February 15, 2007, Senator Pryor introduced S. 602, a bill to 

develop the next generation of parental control technology. The bill 

was cosponsored by Senators Dorgan, Kohl, Johnson, and Menendez. On June 26, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation held a hearing entitled the Impact of 

Media Violence on Children, which reviewed the effectiveness of efforts by the Congress, FCC, and industry to limit children’s exposure to violent images on cable and broadcast television. 

On August 2, 2007, the Committee held an executive session at 

which S. 602 was considered. The Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute and ordered the bill reported by 

voice vote. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 602—Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 

S. 602 would require the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) to initiate a notice of inquiry to the telecommunications industry to consider the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies for various communications devices such as television. The agency also would examine methods to encourage parents to use such technologies to prevent children from viewing objectionable programming. S. 602 would require the FCC to issue a 

report detailing its findings within 270 days of the bill’s enactment. 

Based on information from the FCC and assuming the availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that implementing S. 

602 would cost less than $500,000 in fiscal year 2008. Enacting the 

legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 602 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Tyler Kruzich. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 602 would direct the FCC to begin a notice of inquiry; no additional persons would be subject to regulation. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 602 would not have an adverse impact on the Nation’s economy. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

PRIVACY

S. 602 would have no significant impact on the personal privacy 

of United States citizens. 

PAPERWORK

S. 602 would not significantly increase paperwork requirements 

for individuals or businesses. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 would establish the title of the Act as ‘‘The Child Safe 

Viewing Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 would set forth a number of Congressional findings related to the impact of audio and video content on children and the 

need to empower parents in limiting their children’s exposure to 

harmful content. 

Section 3. Examination of advanced blocking technologies 

Section 3 would require the FCC to initiate a notice of inquiry 

within 90 days of enactment that would examine the existence and 

availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible 

with various communications devices or platforms and issue a report to Congress detailing any findings. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS